DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/28/2025 and 2/6/2025 was filed on and after the mailing date of the claims on 1/28/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
camera module includes means for attaching the camera module to a surface in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application 2021/0123707 Baskett.
2. Regarding Claim 1 Baskett discloses Event monitoring apparatus comprising a wireless camera module having a wireless connection, the camera module comprising a digital image and/or video recording device and a user actuable input device (Abstract, “The system is also comprised of a wireless transmitter that automatically sends the image/video from the camera assembly to a mobile application on a smartphone or other smart device, wherein the images/videos are encrypted, time-stamped and dated.” Abstract, “The camera assembly is actuated by a actuation mechanism in communication with the trigger assembly of the firearm, and is activated when the trigger wall is met in the act of pulling the trigger of a firearm.” See Figs. 3A, 3B);
wherein the camera module ([0023], “pistol or handgun and having a camera assembly integrated therein”) is arranged to:
a) in response to user actuation of the input device, set a timer for a predetermined period for monitoring an event (Abstract, “The camera assembly is actuated by a actuation mechanism in communication with the trigger assembly of the firearm, and is activated when the trigger wall is met in the act of pulling the trigger of a firearm.” See Figs. 3A, 3B);
b) record a plurality of digital images and/or video clips at respective times during the predetermined period, using the digital image and/or video recording device (Abstract, “The system is also comprised of a wireless transmitter that automatically sends the image/video from the camera assembly to a mobile application on a smartphone or other smart device, wherein the images/videos are encrypted, time-stamped and dated…The system is also comprised of a wireless transmitter that automatically sends the image/video from the camera assembly to a mobile application on a smartphone or other smart device, wherein the images/videos are encrypted, time-stamped and dated.” [0009]);
c) store data relating to the event, the data including the recorded plurality of digital images and/or video clips (Fig. 4: 137; [0027], “memory 137 may be any form of memory device known in the art for receiving and storing data such as, but not limited to, the photos and/or video captured by the camera system 130, time and date information, the identity of the user of the handgun 10, etc.”); and
d) transmit the data relating to the event over the wireless connection for monitoring
by a remote device ([0028], “The mobile application 32 may also provide a means to transfer images/video/data from the camera assembly 130 or the memory 137 to the smart device 30, which may be a smart phone, a computer, or any smart device of the like, by, for example a wireless Bluetooth connection.”.
3. Regarding Claim 2 Baskett discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the times at which the digital images and/or video clips are recorded are randomly or pseudo-randomly determined ([0027], “camera system 130, once activated, is capable of capturing photos and/or video, as preselected by the user via a mobile application 32 on a smart phone or other device”).
4. Regarding Claim 3 Baskett discloses The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the digital images and/or video clips are each recorded at a randomly or pseudo-randomly determined time within a respective predetermined subdivision of the predetermined period ([0028], “the user (not shown) may select between a singular photo, a rapid burst of photos, or a video, all of which are actuated by each pull of the trigger assembly 15 of handgun 10… mobile application 32 may also provide a means to transfer images/video/data from the camera assembly 130 or the memory 137 to the smart device 30”).
5. Regarding Claim 4 Baskett discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the data is transmitted in response to a further actuation of the input device ([0031], “wiring 150 may run from the trigger 15 to the actuation mechanism 142 to the camera 130 (and its processor) and then to the transmitter 170”).
6. Regarding Claim 5 Baskett discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the data is transmitted automatically after the predetermined period ([0030], “the camera assembly 130 is automatically actuated by the pulling of the trigger 15”).
7. Regarding Claim 6 Baskett discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the camera module includes an indicator arranged to indicate that the camera module is active during the predetermined period ([0023], “The camera assembly is automatically activated via an actuation mechanism in mechanical or electrical connection with the trigger of the firearm.”).
8. Regarding Claim 8 Baskett discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the input device and recording device are integrated in the camera module ([0023], “the camera is activated via a mechanical connection between the camera and trigger assembly and begins to take, for example, a rapid burst of images, a single image, or a video, with all options being configurable by the user in the settings of the mobile application that is in communication with the camera assembly.”).
9. Regarding Claim 9 Baskett discloses The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the input device is wirelessly connected (claimed in the alternative) or connectable to the camera module ([0029], “trigger assembly [i.e., input device] 15 for actuating camera system 130 via actuation mechanism 142”).
10. Regarding Claim 10 Baskett discloses The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the camera module includes means for attaching the camera module to a surface (Fig. 4: 110; [0025], “a front sight post 110” [0026], “the front sight post 110 is further comprised of an opening therein to accommodate camera assembly”).
11. Regarding Claim 11 Baskett discloses The apparatus of claim_1, wherein the camera module includes a rechargeable battery for providing electrical power for operation of the camera module ([0031], “actuation mechanism 142 to the camera 130 (and its processor) and then to the transmitter 170, all of which may be powered by a micro-battery (e.g., watch, cell-phone or hearing aid battery) that may be wired or wirelessly rechargeable.”).
12. Regarding Claim 14 Baskett discloses The system of claim_1, wherein the remote device includes a software application arranged to access the data relating to the event ([0023], “Between the trigger wall being met and the trigger being fully pulled, the camera is activated via a mechanical connection between the camera and trigger assembly and begins to take, for example, a rapid burst of images, a single image, or a video, with all options being configurable by the user in the settings of the mobile application that is in communication with the camera assembly… allows the images/videos from the camera and GPS data to be automatically transmitted in a secure, encrypted, and time-stamped manner to the mobile application, which can run on a mobile phone or other smart device.”.
13. Regarding Claim 15 Baskett discloses The system of claim 14, wherein the software application is arranged to indicate to a user of the remote device the occurrence of events monitored by the camera module ([0023], “a rapid burst of images, a single image, or a video, with all options being configurable by the user in the settings of the mobile application that is in communication with the camera assembly.”).
14. Regarding Claim 16 Baskett discloses The system of claim 14, wherein the software application is arranged to display to a user of the remote device the recorded plurality of digital images and/or video clips and to receive input from the user indicating compliance with an expected activity during the associated event a mobile application on a smartphone displaying a photograph taken by the firearm front sight post camera system ([0017], “a mobile application on a smartphone displaying a photograph taken by the firearm front sight post camera system.” Abstract, “The camera assembly is actuated by a actuation mechanism in communication with the trigger assembly of the firearm, and is activated when the trigger wall is met in the act of pulling the trigger of a firearm”).
15. Regarding Claim 17 Baskett discloses The system of claim 14, wherein the software application is arranged to analyse (claimed in the alternative), or send for remote analysis, the recorded plurality of digital images and/or video clips for compliance with an expected activity during the associated event (Abstract, “The system is also comprised of a wireless transmitter that automatically sends the image/video from the camera assembly to a mobile application on a smartphone or other smart device, wherein the images/videos are encrypted, time-stamped and dated.”).
16. Regarding Claim 21 Baskett discloses The system of claim 14, wherein the software application is arranged to configure the operation of the camera module via the wireless connection (Abstract, “The system is also comprised of a wireless transmitter that automatically sends the image/video from the camera assembly to a mobile application on a smartphone or other smart device, wherein the images/videos are encrypted, time-stamped and dated.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
17. Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application 2021/0123707 Baskett in view of U.S. Patent 9462879 Anelevitz.
18. Regarding Claim 7 Baskett discloses The apparatus of claim 6, wherein the indicator “The camera assembly is automatically activated via an actuation mechanism in mechanical or electrical connection with the trigger of the firearm.”) is arranged to indicate the-predetermined subdivisions of the predetermined period.
Baskett does not explicitly disclose is arranged to indicate the-predetermined subdivisions of the predetermined period.
Anelevitz teaches is arranged to indicate the-predetermined subdivisions of the predetermined period (Col. 2 lines 33-37, “timer is provided with at least four different preset times and the indicia comprises an image of a mouth having four quadrants. A level of illumination of one of the four quadrants may be changed when the time count reaches each of the preset times.” Indicating to the user that a particular quadrant of the mount has been brushed for a suitable amount of time and that the user should move to the next quadrant).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to incorporate Anelevitz’s per-subdivision phase indicator into Baskett’s event monitoring camera system, as this is a routine and predictable enhancement using a known quadrant-based visual timer to signal which phase of the monitoring period is active, yielding the expect result of keeping the user informed of which subdivision is currently monitored
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
19. Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application 2021/0123707 Baskett in view of U.S. Patent 10708550 Glazer et al. (hereinafter Glazer).
20. Regarding Claim 12 Baskett discloses The apparatus of claim_1,
However, Baskett does not explicitly disclose wherein the camera module includes an audio output device arranged to output audio to the user during the event.
Glazer teaches wherein the camera module includes an audio output device arranged to output audio to the user during the event (Col. 7 lines 57-59, “Camera head 62 optionally includes additional sensors and/or output devices, such as a microphone 88 and an audio speaker 90” col. 9 lines 8-11, “a video area 144 in screen 140 shows live images captured by the monitoring camera mounted over the crib, along with a status message 146 and event summaries 150”).
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to combine Baskett’s event-monitoring camera with Glazer’s known audio output capability in the camera module, as both address monitoring activities and the addition of an integrated speaker is a well-known and predictable enhancement requiring only ordinary skill. The motivation is providing audio output during the monitoring events guides or alerts the user in real time, improving utility of the monitoring system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
21. Claim(s) 18, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application 2021/0123707 Baskett in view of U.S. Patent Application 2018/0303397 Krupat et al. (hereinafter Krupat).
22. Regarding Claim 18 Baskett discloses The system of claim 17, including and/or video clips for compliance with an expected activity during the associated event ([0017], “a mobile application on a smartphone displaying a photograph taken by the firearm front sight post camera system.”).
However, Baskett does not explicitly disclose a machine learning model arranged to analyse the recorded plurality of digital images
Krupat teaches a machine learning model arranged to analyse the recorded plurality of digital images ([0093], “The supervised machine learning models can be based on support vector machines (SVMs). An SVM can have an associated learning model that is used for data analysis and pattern analysis. For example, an SVM can be used to classify data that can be obtained from collected videos of people experiencing a media presentation. An SVM can be trained using “known good” data that is labeled as belonging to one of two categories (e.g. smile and no-smile).” [0110], “The large-scale clustering of facial events can be performed for data collected from a remote computing device” [0114], “deep learning for emotion analysis. Emotion analysis can be based on image analysis and representation for emotional metric threshold evaluation”)
It would have been obvious to a POSITA at the time of the invention to incorporate Krupat’s machine learning-based image compliance analysis into Baskett’s remote monitoring system. Both references address the same technical problem-remotely monitoring whether an activity has been performed a correctly using recorded images. Adding a machine learning model to automatically analyse the recorded images for compliance is a well-known, routine, and predictable enhancement to any image-based monitoring system.
23. Regarding Claim 19 Baskett discloses The system of claim 17, wherein compliance with an expected activity during the associated event ([0017], “a mobile application on a smartphone displaying a photograph taken by the firearm front sight post camera system.”).
However, Baskett does not explicitly disclose wherein the machine learning model is trained using the input from the user.
Krupat teaches wherein the machine learning model is trained using the input from the user indicating compliance with an expected activity during the associated event ([0092], “the machine learning technique can be trained using “known good” data. Once trained, the machine learning technique can proceed to classify new data that is captured.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
24. Claim(s) 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application 2021/0123707 Baskett in view of U.S. Patent Application 2015/0187220 Patel.
25. Regarding Claim 20 Baskett discloses The system of claim 14,
However, Baskett does not explicitly disclose wherein the software application is arranged to enable a reward in response to the occurrence of events monitored by the camera module which comply with an expected activity during the associated event.
Patel teaches wherein the software application is arranged to enable a reward in response to the occurrence of events monitored by the camera module which comply with an expected activity during the associated event (Abstract, “A system for monitoring in real-time a student's progress and achievements allows parents to set criteria and provide rewards to the student… The ratings are completed on-line using a device. Once the student achieves a goal, then the student receives a reward using a device coupled to a server within the system.” [0018], “FIG. 1 depicts a rewards and monitoring system 100” Fig. 2B, 3, [0053], [0055], [0057]) .
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to incorporate Patel’s reward-on-compliance mechanism into Baskett’s remote monitoring system to incentivizing children to perform the monitored activity correctly and regularly (spec [0006]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMER KHALID whose telephone number is (571)270-5997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9am-7pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John Miller can be reached at (571) 272-7353. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/OMER KHALID/Examiner, Art Unit 2422
/BRIAN P YENKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2422